July 11, 2012

Here's a CSM columnist relaying similar opinion (and you can watch the video clip there):

Is it possible that the booing incident will actually be good for the Romney campaign?

Some conservative analysts think it will. Their argument is that Romney will win few African American votes anyway, and that his willingness to say things he knew would be unpopular to the NAACP audience will win him support from other demographic groups.
“This gives him all sorts of instant credibility on the Right and in the middle,” writes conservative talk show host/blogger Ed Morrissey on the Hot Air website. “The middle will be pleased to see that Romney went to the convention at all, in the face of overt hostility, plus the NAACP audience comes across as a bit immature. The Right has doubted Romney’s commitment to repealing ObamaCare at times, but this shows that Romney is willing to repeat that pledge anywhere, even when it’s guaranteed to turn the audience against him.”...

Others on the right noted that Romney got some applause from the NAACP members, as well. They approved of his mention of GOP school choice initiatives and his defense of what he called “traditional marriage.”...

Left-leaning commentators were much less impressed. The liberal talk show host Ed Schultz of MSNBC tweeted that the booing was “an ugly moment for the candidate,” and that Romney tried to “sneak” the repeal Obamacare line past the audience.

Perhaps its just alien to the democrats and their hand maidens in the media that Romney actually believes it what he's saying and is unafraid. Kudos to Mittens for marching into the lion's den. I don't expect Choom to counter by going to a VFW meeting next week.

The point for Romney is that McCain got 4% of "the Black vote," so for him any couple of percentage points he can skin off is a gain; perhaps a crucial one in some areas.

For Obama it is the opposite; he says one wrong or just not quite right thing, and he loses off the 96% he got in -08. So Obama stays away. He has not gone near the NAACP to date, and probably won't anytime before the election.

I did see a Lt.Col Nicholson from 'Bridge over the River Kwai' moment for the democrats who are now understanding the republicans aren't going to quit till obamacare is crippled and laying by the roadside.

If it was calculated, it was a great move. It was an obvious play, but it also completely appropriate. I think many Black will respect him for it, and the ones who don't are lost causes anyway. It definitely was positive to conservatives. I heard it praised all day from that side.

It would have been nice if Obama went in front of a Gay group in 2008 and told them he would not support them until he needed reelected. Same with Latinos. But he couldn't do that with Michelle having his balls in a jar and all.

Pelosi says he wanted to be booed. Ed Schultz says he tried to sneak the Obamacare line in (presumably to avoid boos).

Pelosi is almost never right, but she is calculating, and I suspect that she wants to emphasize that he was booed by the NAACP, which is also what the media is emphasizing - so they must think it is good for Obama.

Schutlz is never right. but Romney did deliver the line about Obamacare in an odd fashion. So Schultz, for once, may be close to correct.

It obviously was calculated by Romney. Nothing really to lose. I don't think anything to gain from blacks, but some potential gain with independents/undecideds.

It's not about what I would have him do. Each individual is responsible for themselves. So the only way I can answer that is to say, If I were the candidate, I'd go and say the same things. (Noted: he's now "courageous" to his base.) But I wouldn't pretend it was courageous.

This will win a lot of Blacks. The independent ones can say: He wasn't afraid to tell us what he thought, even if if he expected us to disagree. Obama never does that...to anyone. In other words, he lies.

PS The Romster's appearance will go some to allay conservative fears he's another McCain or a long-lost Bush brother, but, as always, leslyn is wrong.

Conservatives will admire him for going (would Choom go someplace where he'd be booed, especially if he couldn't scream, "Rrraaacccisssmmmm", afterward?), but they'll want to see a bit more than that before they breathe easier.

PPS We hear the spokespeople of the Black Community always demanding Republicans reach out to them.

Is it about time, given the NAACP performance, that the Black Community starts reaching out to the rest of the country?

No, it wasn't especially courageous; it's politics not dueling, but what it wasn't, was cowardly, which Obama is. Even Obama's supporters blast him for that.

This thing is all about showing the contrasts, because being the un-Obama is the ticket. That's why Romney is attacked by both sides for anything he remotely syncs with with Obama on. Both sides think that's a reason not to vote for Romney, and they're right.

leslyn, I'm trying to understand how you think. I hope you're not a Moby, though you seem a bit like one. I'll assume you're not, so...

You said in response to OM's question that "If I were the candidate, I'd go and say the same things." Do you mean you'd advocate Romney's positions? I doubt it. I think you mean that you're saying you think Romney should have done what he did, in fact, do, which was to go before an audience and advocate the policies he thinks are best.

But I'm still trying to figure out the liberal mind. It's a mystery to me. Can you help?

This was all a waste of time. Blacks will not vote for Wonder Bread over the Halfrican in any considerable way. With strenuous effort Romney might get, what, 1-2% more of the black vote than McCain? 1-2% of 13% of the population. That's peanuts. Or bananas. Whatever fits the theme. Point is, Romney is either a total retard to think he could swing any black voters, or he's extraordinarily devious by using the NAACP, Democrats, and the media to achieve some ulterior motive--possibly to convince a skeptical base and swing the not-inconsiderable number of moderates who think the NAACP is a pathetic organization of menacing race-baiters.

omg I totally want to have a Moesha marathon right now. Is it on Netflix?

This was all a waste of time. Blacks will not vote for Wonder Bread over the Halfrican in any considerable way. With strenuous effort Romney might get, what, 1-2% more of the black vote than McCain? 1-2% of 13% of the population. That's peanuts. Or bananas. Whatever fits the theme. Point is, Romney is either a total retard to think he could swing any black voters, or he's extraordinarily devious by using the NAACP, Democrats, and the media to achieve some ulterior motive--possibly to convince a skeptical base and swing the not-inconsiderable number of moderates who think the NAACP is a pathetic organization of menacing race-baiters.

As I say, it's about convincing blacks that, if they know they can't take another 4 years of Zero, but can't abide the idea of voting Republican (which anyone else would do), staying home is just as good.

Bill O'Reilly had Marc Lamont Hill on tonight. Bill asked bluntly whether blacks who vote for Obama because he's black were being racist. Marc bubbled around about how that wasn't the question, so Bill asked whether whites who might vote for a white candidate because he's white would be racist. Marc bubbled more.

Romney, like Reagan used to do, was talking over the heads of the NAACP which is a bunch of race hustlers who make their living off racism. There are a lot of blacks who are sophisticated and know how wrong Obama is who are looking for the permission in their own minds to vote against him.

They elected a black president. That's been done. Re-electing him is much less a symbol, especially when he is such a disaster. I've seen quite a few blacks say they aren't voting for him again. That number may go up now.

I honestly think that "imprint" of racism is so fixed in their minds (and for so long) that they can't recognize a photographic negative when they see one. It's hindered vision at best and willful blindness at worse.

Orwell might say that they struggle to see the very nose in front of their face.

The "what is he supposed to do?" question really is impossible to answer from the other side. If he wanted cheers from the NAACP, though, what he had to do was talk about discriminating against white farmers, I suppose.

OK. The term "politics", in general discourse, refers to the partisan side of debate. Morality, philosophy, ethics, etc. are on one side. Those things refer to reason, logic, values, etc.

Politics, then, is on the other side: the partisan side, the one that doesn't care between right and wrong, but only between right and might. So you're saying Romney's unhappy speech before the NAACP was a power-seeking thing? What, he hoped he would gain support from his audience? or it was a dog-whistle of some strange kind?

When the chips are down black people are going to vote for the black guy, no matter how terrible he's been.

However. Even though there's no way he's going to peel off a statistically significant number of black votes, the more comfortable black people are with Romney the less likely it is that they'll vote at all if they're unhappy with Obama.

Obama sends veiled promises of security from a flow of government checks for the day the coming days when the economy really crashes due to energy strangulation and irrational regulations forbidding commerce.

The NAACP is not going to follow Romney into an austerity program to help private business owners. They ain't fools.

"It cemented him with his base, who are now going to call him "courageous" for simple manipulation."

"“I think it was a calculated move on his part to get booed at the NAACP convention,”"

"if he has staff members who vetted that speech or inserted some of the things that I heard, they should be fired," Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) told a handful of reporters. “I mean, how in the world would you stand up in front of the NAACP and say that you oppose Obamacare?”"

Sigh. leslyn thinks black people are easily manipulated. Polosi agrees. And Cleaver feels Romney staff members should be fired for not advising Romney to pander to the NAACP. Why do the "tolerant" party insist on treating black people as children?

Obama can't go to every event ever, of course, but he had to decide if he needed to go to this one.

Think of it this way... every single thing that he *did* decide to attend is implicitly more important than the NAACP convention.

Several people have said (likely correctly) that Romney had no chance of convincing black people to vote for him. 96% in the bag for Obama.

OTOH, if a fundraiser with Sarah Jessica Parker is more important as part of Obama's very serious presidential duties than giving a speech to the NAACP convention (which it clearly is), the people who have said that Romney gains nothing, might turn out to have been wrong.

it was a good speech and an especially appropriate forum or the Rep candidate to give it. As Romney said, he wants to be a president for all Americans, even those who may not vote for him. As he also explained, he comes from a state where the Rep candidate is used to asking people who aren't Reps for their vote, and giving them the reasons why he deserves it.

His reasons were quite powerful -- O's miserable leadership is hurting the black community more than any other, so that community in particular would benefit from a change in direction. Unless, of course, they like sky-high levels of unemployment and dependency as far as the eye can see.

As for Pelosi, she's a bit foolish to focus on Romney's pledge to repeal O-care or the reaction to it by a partisan Dem audience. If that's the topic of discussion in any form, it's a bad day for Obama and the Dems.

Yes, at least as long as you don't use it to repeat the same speech over and over again, know how to properly pronounce the words on it, and don't sound like a high school drop out when forced to speak without it.

leslyn, you're either too clever for me, or an idiot. "Dog whistle" is a common term in recent politics; look it up.

I don't want to assume you're stupid (though I think Mobying might be challenging for the brain), so I'll assume you're too clever for me. Romney went before the NAACP, said what he thought was right, got boo'd, and it was all a clever trick to gain power?

No, BobE, b/c I was only addressing the "party" aspect of jeff's question, not talking about leslyn per se.

But presumably the supporters of a particular political agenda share similar worldviews, generally speaking. No conspiracy necessary.

What causes leftists to go left?

Interesting question. I doubt there's a single reason.

What seems to be the main reason rightists go right is that they learn some economics. Not b/c there's anything about it that requires people to lean right as a matter of logic, but b/c it makes clear the basic fallacies that leftist politicians commonly deploy in debate. Certainly that's what converted me from my previous typical-college-sophomore fashionable leftist stance.

You know, like the stance Obama still takes. Probably b/c he never learned any economics at all.

leslyn has her own reasons, though, and I wouldn't presume to know what they are.

Okay so... someone asks... "Romney, how could be such a dummy as to tell the NAACP that you were gonna take away their free stuff?" And Romney says "If they want free stuff, they can vote for the other guy."

The insulting assumption is still not on Romney's part, it's on the part of the person who asked a question implying that the NAACP is about getting stuff from the government.

Change it to "Romney, how could you be such a dummy to tell the League of Women Voters that you were opposed to Obamacare," and he said, "If they want free stuff, they can vote for the other guy."

The whole speech is on Youtube and it's very good. But what I particularly noticed was that in the speech Romney says Obama won't live up to his promises and Romney wasn't booed for that. I think that an attack on Obama at the NAACP which results in only a few scattered incidents of booing is really a big story. I handed out anti-Obama fliers at an Obama speech in 2008 and got a lot more booing than Romney got at the NAACP in 2012. Also Romney attacked the teachers unions without getting booed. He defended free enterprise. If people say Romney is a racist because a Republican then you can refer them to this speech. www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAhJh0ADd9k So that also makes it worth while.

Perhaps it was a manipulative ploy on Romney's part. But if it were, the easy way to foil it would be to simply not boo.....So far as it is possible to boo in a polite and respectful way, it was polite and respectful booing. I would comment, though, that he was their guest. He didn't barge into their meeting to lecture them on Obamacare. They invited him and, as such, he was owed a respectful hearing.

Bob Ellison said... leslyn, you're either too clever for me, or an idiot. "Dog whistle" is a common term in recent politics; look it up. I don't want to assume you're stupid (though I think Mobying might be challenging for the brain), so I'll assume you're too clever for me. Romney went before the NAACP, said what he thought was right, got boo'd, and it was all a clever trick to gain power? How did he hope to gain power? Can you please spell it out for us?

Bob Ellison, for the last time:

See 8:59, 9:02: 9:16, and 9:24. Two of those are not mine but they address the point.

Now. You're quite insistent, aren't you, and you seem determined to misunderstand, exaggerate or presume. You also make some self-revealing statements:

About the NAACP: "They might be just stupid."

About me: "You're either too clever for me or you're an idiot." Your following statements clearly infer that I'm an idiot for not knowing why you used the term "dog whistle."

Oh, and you're also demanding: "Leslyn, answer Original Mike's question." Perhaps you'll be dismayed to know I was already working on that. But I didn't have to answer it at all.

Is any of this really important? No. But I've noticed this odd hectoring from you before. I conclude that you are disingenuous.

"The insulting assumption is still not on Romney's part, it's on the part of the person who asked a question implying that the NAACP is about getting stuff from the government."

It's a noble effort, Synova, but Garage, having made his little passive-aggressive insinuation (racists!) is now retreating behind his Invincible Wall of Stupid. Behind this wall, simple matters of grammar and logic become inexplicable to him, rendering argument useless.

I would also say we need more "White" politicians to show up at "Black" events, and more "Black" politicians to show up at "White" events.

I think this whole thing of turning voting districts into ethnic enclaves is a mistake for the people it is supposed to help.The practice naturally results in machine politics with a small octogenarian ruling clique in each fief and a small voter turnout, because what's the use when you know the anointed ones are going to be elected anyway.

Same thing in Congress, the system gets Black people elected to Congress, but the Congressional Black Caucus is marginalized as a special interest voting block. The Dem party leadership "negotiates" with the CBC leadership, and the troops are told to vote as they are told, and don't even think of rocking the boat.

This is not the way to get your ideas accepted at large nor to develop national leaders from within your "community."

The politically neutral National Journal seems to think Romney was both courageous and successful in speaking to the NAACP:

The prospect of speaking to a crowd that overwhelmingly supports your opponent is not only politically risky; it's personally intimidating. In such settings, and under such an intense microscope, one small misstep can snowball into a news-dominating disaster.

,leslyn's just a liberal trying to downplay what appears to have been a successful speech by Romney. I agree, though, that the "fear of black people" bit was unjustified. (Emphasis added.)

Chip, even though I was struck by the NAACP being likened to a "lion's den", perhaps you're right that "fear of black people" was over the top. I'm still not sure. (the "lion's den" is such a fearful metaphor.) It smoked out Coketown, though.

I think Romney had a very successful speech. I think he accomplished politically what he wanted.

ChipS. Thank your for that walk down memory lane. That is the exact image that today's racists, people like Leslyn, have when they consider any conservative through their vile and pompous and smug racist lens. They long for those days, the days that some of us lived through and lost blood and friendships over. It was not a time that in any way resembles today and the" heroic "twits like Leslyn that view themselves as so fucking pure would not have been found in those troubled times. They make me sick.

They long for those days, the days that some of us lived through and lost blood and friendships over. It was not a time that in any way resembles today and the" heroic "twits like Leslyn that view themselves as so fucking pure would not have been found in those troubled times.

Mitt showed respect for the NAACP (and the blacks represented by the NAACP) by showing up at their convention, not pandering, and taking his verbal whoopin' like a man. Most blacks disagree with Mitt but can at least respect his honesty. 99% of life is showing up (according to the great moral authority Woody Allen)and Mitt showed up.

Mitt also earned points with GOP voters by his straight talking rather than contorting his message for a particular interest group.

Obama did not even show up, advantage Mitt. Mitt was clearly more courageous than Obama.

Mitt does not have to persuade blacks to vote for him to make inroads on the black vote. If Mitt can persuade enough blacks to stay home and not vote, it will help him tremendously in several of the toss up states. The reality is that blacks who want jobs or want to keep their jobs or don't want their taxes raised, will do better financially under a GOP gov.

By showing up and presenting himself at the NAACP convention, blacks see for themselves that Mitt is not some kind of racist, right wing monster.

Biden insulted NAACP audience by assuming they would be too stupid to see through his rhetorical trick of claiming that because Romney and the Republicans are against Obama's particular 'solution' to Health Care inadequacies, that means they don't want to solve the problem AT ALL.

Question is, yes, that tactic is unethical, but was he correct in his assumption?

Bob Ellison said..."Chip S., your reasoning implies that leslyn is part of some vast left-wing conspiracy. I doubt that's the case."

Conspiracy is a loaded word but obviously politics is extremely organized on a vast scale in the USA on both the left and right. The "vast left wing conspiracy" is the dem party. On the right, the corresponding entity is the GOP. Calling it a conspiracy makes no sense since it is an extremely visible activity.

"I think she/he believes she/he has reason on her/his side. It's an important distinction. What causes leftists to go left?"

You are probably vastly overstating the importance of ideology on the left and vastly understating the importance of old time corrupt, back scratching politics. Dems are almost all members of privileged interest groups (PIGs) that want the gov to give them special privileges (affirmative action for women, blacks, and hispanics, for example). These PIGs band together to extract more benefits from the gov. It is that simple. Lefty ideology is simply a convenient myth they have constructed so that lefties don't have to confront the reality that they are selfish PIGs at the gov trough.

"an Internet idiot" --is that, "an idiot about the Internet"?, in which case, half a check; or an idiot --no check--on the Intetnet--check.

"with a government job." Check!

Ahhh--but what government job? Would you approve? Would you not? Are all government jobs bad? Have I held more than one? Would you approve of one job over another?

Michael,

have I been a first responder? Have I just sat on my ass? Have I made a difference to the people who help keep this country safe? If I think so, how do I know? Have I put my life in jeopardy for people I don't even know? Once? Every day? Never? Have I been a waste of space? Have I mattered to someone?

Both y'all take your cumulative knowledge and decide.

And oh yes--what have I done to perpetuate racism? What have I done to eliminate it? Do I know anyone of different race who thinks highly of me? Or do they hate me?

In other words, what have I done with my life? Tell me, since you know so much.